﻿<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"><!--
 Archive processed by SingleFile 
 url: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997 
 saved date: Sat Oct 18 2014 03:10:58 GMT+0300 (Финляндия (лето)) 
--><head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
    <meta name="robots" content="index,follow">
    <meta name="creator" content="rfcmarkup version 1.109">
    <link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<meta name="DC.Identifier" content="urn:ietf:rfc:5997">
<meta name="DC.Description.Abstract" content="This document describes a deployed extension to the Remote\nAuthentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, enabling\nclients to query the status of a RADIUS server. This extension\nutilizes the Status-Server (12) Code, which was reserved for\nexperimental use in RFC 2865. This document is not an Internet\nStandards Track specification; it is published for informational\npurposes.">
<meta name="DC.Creator" content="Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>">
<meta name="DC.Date.Issued" content="August, 2010">
<meta name="DC.Title" content="Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol">

    <link rel="icon" href="" type="image/png">
    <link rel="shortcut icon" href="" type="image/png">
    <title>RFC 5997 - Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol</title>
    
    
    <style type="text/css">
	body {
	    margin: 0px 8px;
            font-size: 1em;
	}
        h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, .h1, .h2, .h3, .h4, .h5, .h6 {
	    font-weight: bold;
            line-height: 0pt;
            display: inline;
            white-space: pre;
            font-family: monospace;
            font-size: 1em;
	    font-weight: bold;
        }
        pre {
            font-size: 1em;
            margin-top: 0px;
            margin-bottom: 0px;
        }
	.pre {
	    white-space: pre;
	    font-family: monospace;
	}
	.header{
	    font-weight: bold;
	}
        .newpage {
            page-break-before: always;
        }
        .invisible {
            text-decoration: none;
            color: white;
        }
        a.selflink {
          color: black;
          text-decoration: none;
        }
        @media print {
            body {
                font-family: monospace;
                font-size: 10.5pt;
            }
            h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
                font-size: 1em;
            }
        
            a:link, a:visited {
                color: inherit;
                text-decoration: none;
            }
            .noprint {
                display: none;
            }
        }
	@media screen {
	    .grey, .grey a:link, .grey a:visited {
		color: #777;
	    }
            .docinfo {
                background-color: #EEE;
            }
            .top {
                border-top: 7px solid #EEE;
            }
            .bgwhite  { background-color: white; }
            .bgred    { background-color: #F44; }
            .bggrey   { background-color: #666; }
            .bgbrown  { background-color: #840; }            
            .bgorange { background-color: #FA0; }
            .bgyellow { background-color: #EE0; }
            .bgmagenta{ background-color: #F4F; }
            .bgblue   { background-color: #66F; }
            .bgcyan   { background-color: #4DD; }
            .bggreen  { background-color: #4F4; }

            .legend   { font-size: 90%; }
            .cplate   { font-size: 70%; border: solid grey 1px; }
	}
    </style>
    <!--[if IE]>
    <style>
    body {
       font-size: 13px;
       margin: 10px 10px;
    }
    </style>
    <![endif]-->

    
</head>
<body>
   <div style="height: 13px;">
      <div onmouseover="this.style.cursor='pointer';" onclick="showElem('legend');" onmouseout="hideElem('legend')" style="height: 6px; position: absolute;" class="pre noprint docinfo bgorange" title="Click for colour legend.">                                                                        </div>
      <div id="legend" class="docinfo noprint pre legend" style="position:absolute; top: 4px; left: 4ex; visibility:hidden; background-color: white; padding: 4px 9px 5px 7px; border: solid #345 1px; " onmouseover="showElem('legend');" onmouseout="hideElem('legend');">
      </div>
   </div>
<span class="pre noprint docinfo top">[<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html" title="Document search and retrieval page">Docs</a>] [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5997.txt" title="Plaintext version of this document">txt</a>|<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc5997" title="PDF version of this document">pdf</a>] [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-status-server" title="draft-ietf-radext-status-server">draft-ietf-radext...</a>] [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&amp;url2=rfc5997" title="Inline diff (wdiff)">Diff1</a>] [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=rfc5997" title="Side-by-side diff">Diff2</a>] [<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5997">Errata</a>]        </span><br>
<span class="pre noprint docinfo">                                                                        </span><br>
<span class="pre noprint docinfo">                                                           INFORMATIONAL</span><br>
<span class="pre noprint docinfo">                                                            <span style="color: #C00;">Errata Exist</span></span><br>
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          A. DeKok
Request for Comments: 5997                                    FreeRADIUS
Updates: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2866">2866</a>                                                August 2010
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                  <span class="h1"><h1>Use of Status-Server Packets in the</h1></span>
      <span class="h1"><h1>Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol</h1></span>

Abstract

   This document describes a deployed extension to the Remote
   Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, enabling
   clients to query the status of a RADIUS server.  This extension
   utilizes the Status-Server (12) Code, which was reserved for
   experimental use in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865">RFC 2865</a>.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5741#section-2">Section&nbsp;2 of RFC 5741</a>.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5997">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5997</a>.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 1]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-2" id="page-2" href="#page-2" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
      <a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Applicability ..............................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
      <a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Terminology ................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
      <a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Requirements Language ......................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>. Overview ........................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
      <a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Why Access-Request is Inappropriate ........................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
           <a href="#section-2.1.1">2.1.1</a>. Recommendation against Access-Request ...............<a href="#page-7">7</a>
      <a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Why Accounting-Request is Inappropriate ....................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
           <a href="#section-2.2.1">2.2.1</a>. Recommendation against Accounting-Request ...........<a href="#page-7">7</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>. Packet Format ...................................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
      <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Single Definition for Status-Server .......................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>. Implementation Notes ...........................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
      <a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Client Requirements .......................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
      <a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Server Requirements .......................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
      <a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Failover with Status-Server ...............................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
      <a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Proxy Server Handling of Status-Server ....................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
      <a href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. Limitations of Status-Server ..............................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
      <a href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>. Management Information Base (MIB) Considerations ..........<a href="#page-17">17</a>
           <a href="#section-4.6.1">4.6.1</a>. Interaction with RADIUS Server MIB Modules .........<a href="#page-17">17</a>
           <a href="#section-4.6.2">4.6.2</a>. Interaction with RADIUS Client MIB Modules .........<a href="#page-17">17</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>. Table of Attributes ............................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>. Examples .......................................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
      <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Minimal Query to Authentication Port ......................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
      <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Minimal Query to Accounting Port ..........................<a href="#page-20">20</a>
      <a href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>. Verbose Query and Response ................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>. References .....................................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
      <a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References ......................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
      <a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Informative References ....................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
   Acknowledgments ...................................................<a href="#page-24">24</a>







<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 2]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-3" id="page-3" href="#page-3" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</h2></span>

   This document specifies a deployed extension to the Remote
   Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, enabling
   clients to query the status of a RADIUS server.  While the Status-
   Server (12) Code was defined as experimental in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865#section-3">[RFC2865], Section&nbsp;3</a>,
   details of the operation and potential uses of the Code were not
   provided.

   As with the core RADIUS protocol, the Status-Server extension is
   stateless, and queries do not otherwise affect the normal operation
   of a server, nor do they result in any side effects, other than
   perhaps incrementing an internal packet counter.  Most of the
   implementations of this extension have utilized it alongside
   implementations of RADIUS as defined in [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865" title="&quot;Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)&quot;">RFC2865</a>], so that this
   document focuses solely on the use of this extension with UDP
   transport.

   The rest of this document is laid out as follows.  <a href="#section-2">Section 2</a> contains
   the problem statement, and explanations as to why some possible
   solutions can have unwanted side effects.  <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a> defines the
   Status-Server packet format.  <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a> contains client and server
   requirements, along with some implementation notes.  <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a>
   contains a RADIUS table of attributes.  The remaining text discusses
   security considerations not covered elsewhere in the document.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>.  Applicability</h3></span>

   This protocol is being recommended for publication as an
   Informational RFC rather than as a Standards-Track RFC because of
   problems with deployed implementations.  This includes security
   vulnerabilities.  The fixes recommended here are compatible with
   existing servers that receive Status-Server packets, but impose new
   security requirements on clients that send Status-Server packets.

   Some existing implementations of this protocol do not support the
   Message-Authenticator attribute ([<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3579" title="&quot;RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3579</a>]).  This enables an
   unauthorized client to spoof Status-Server packets, potentially
   leading to incorrect Access-Accepts.  In order to remedy this
   problem, this specification requires the use of the Message-
   Authenticator attribute to provide per-packet authentication and
   integrity protection.

   With existing implementations of this protocol, the potential exists
   for Status-Server requests to be in conflict with Access-Request or
   Accounting-Request packets using the same Identifier.  This
   specification recommends techniques to avoid this problem.




<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 3]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-4" id="page-4" href="#page-4" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   These limitations are discussed in more detail below.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>.  Terminology</h3></span>

   This document uses the following terms:

   "Network Access Server (NAS)"

      The device providing access to the network.  Also known as the
      Authenticator (in IEEE 802.1X terminology) or RADIUS client.

   "RADIUS Proxy"

      In order to provide for the routing of RADIUS authentication and
      accounting requests, a RADIUS proxy can be employed.  To the NAS,
      the RADIUS proxy appears to act as a RADIUS server, and to the
      RADIUS server, the proxy appears to act as a RADIUS client.

   "silently discard"

      This means the implementation discards the packet without further
      processing.  The implementation MAY provide the capability of
      logging the error, including the contents of the silently
      discarded packet, and SHOULD record the event in a statistics
      counter.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>.  Requirements Language</h3></span>

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>].

<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Overview</h2></span>

   Status-Server packets are sent by a RADIUS client to a RADIUS server
   in order to test the status of that server.  The destination of a
   Status-Server packet is set to the IP address and port of the server
   that is being tested.  A single Status-Server packet MUST be included
   within a UDP datagram.  A Message-Authenticator attribute MUST be
   included so as to provide per-packet authentication and integrity
   protection.

   RADIUS proxies or servers MUST NOT forward Status-Server packets.  A
   RADIUS server or proxy implementing this specification SHOULD respond
   to a Status-Server packet with an Access-Accept (authentication port)
   or Accounting-Response (accounting port).  An Access-Challenge



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 4]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-5" id="page-5" href="#page-5" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   response is NOT RECOMMENDED.  An Access-Reject response MAY be used.
   The list of attributes that are permitted in Status-Server packets,
   and in Access-Accept or Accounting-Response packets responding to
   Status-Server packets, is provided in <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a>.  <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a> provides
   several examples.

   Since a Status-Server packet MUST NOT be forwarded by a RADIUS proxy
   or server, the client is provided with an indication of the status of
   that server only, since no RADIUS proxies are on the path between the
   RADIUS client and server.  As servers respond to a Status-Server
   packet without examining the User-Name attribute, the response to a
   Status-Server packet cannot be used to infer any information about
   the reachability of specific realms.

   The "hop-by-hop" functionality of Status-Server packets is useful to
   RADIUS clients attempting to determine the status of the first
   element on the path between the client and a server.  Since the
   Status-Server packet is non-forwardable, the lack of a response may
   only be due to packet loss or the failure of the server at the
   destination IP address, and not due to faults in downstream links,
   proxies, or servers.  It therefore provides an unambiguous indication
   of the status of a server.

   This information may be useful in situations in which the RADIUS
   client does not receive a response to an Access-Request.  A client
   may have multiple proxies configured, with one proxy marked as
   primary and another marked as secondary.  If the client does not
   receive a response to a request sent to the primary proxy, it can
   "failover" to the secondary, and send requests to the secondary proxy
   instead.

   However, it is possible that the lack of a response to requests sent
   to the primary proxy was due not to a failure within the primary, but
   to alternative causes such as a failed link along the path to the
   destination server or the failure of the destination server itself.

   In such a situation, it may be useful for the client to be able to
   distinguish between failure causes so that it does not trigger
   failover inappropriately.  For example, if the primary proxy is down,
   then a quick failover to the secondary proxy would be prudent;
   whereas, if a downstream failure is the cause, then the value of
   failover to a secondary proxy will depend on whether packets
   forwarded by the secondary will utilize independent links,
   intermediaries, or destination servers.







<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 5]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-6" id="page-6" href="#page-6" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   The Status-Server packet is not a "Keep-Alive" as discussed in
   <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865#section-2.6">[RFC2865], Section&nbsp;2.6</a>.  "Keep-Alives" are Access-Request packets
   sent to determine whether a downstream server is responsive.  These
   packets are typically sent only when a server is suspected to be
   down, and they are no longer sent as soon as the server is available
   again.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>.  Why Access-Request is Inappropriate</h3></span>

   One possible solution to the problem of querying server status is for
   a NAS to send specially formed Access-Request packets to a RADIUS
   server's authentication port.  The NAS can then look for a response
   and use this information to determine if the server is active or
   unresponsive.

   However, the server may see the request as a normal login request for
   a user and conclude that a real user has logged onto that NAS.  The
   server may then perform actions that are undesirable for a simple
   status query.  The server may alternatively respond with an Access-
   Challenge, indicating that it believes an extended authentication
   conversation is necessary.

   Another possibility is that the server responds with an Access-
   Reject, indicating that the user is not authorized to gain access to
   the network.  As above, the server may also perform local-site
   actions, such as warning an administrator of failed login attempts.
   The server may also delay the Access-Reject response, in the
   traditional manner of rate-limiting failed authentication attempts.
   This delay in response means that the querying administrator is
   unsure as to whether or not the server is down, slow to respond, or
   intentionally delaying its response to the query.

   In addition, using Access-Request queries may mean that the server
   may have local users configured whose sole reason for existence is to
   enable these query requests.  Unless the server policy is designed
   carefully, it may be possible for an attacker to use those
   credentials to gain unauthorized network access.

   We note that some NAS implementations currently use Access-Request
   packets as described above, with a fixed (and non-configurable) user
   name and password.  Implementation issues with that equipment mean
   that if a RADIUS server does not respond to those queries, it may be
   marked as unresponsive by the NAS.  This marking may happen even if
   the server is actively responding to other Access-Requests from that
   same NAS.  This behavior is confusing to administrators who then need
   to determine why an active server has been marked as "unresponsive".





<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 6]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-7" id="page-7" href="#page-7" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h4"><h4><a class="selflink" name="section-2.1.1" href="#section-2.1.1">2.1.1</a>.  Recommendation against Access-Request</h4></span>

   For the reasons outlined above, NAS implementors SHOULD NOT generate
   Access-Request packets solely to see if a server is alive.
   Similarly, site administrators SHOULD NOT configure test users whose
   sole reason for existence is to enable such queries via Access-
   Request packets.

   Note that it still may be useful to configure test users for the
   purpose of performing end-to-end or in-depth testing of a server
   policy.  While this practice is widespread, we caution administrators
   to use it with care.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>.  Why Accounting-Request is Inappropriate</h3></span>

   A similar solution for the problem of querying server status may be
   for a NAS to send specially formed Accounting-Request packets to a
   RADIUS server's accounting port.  The NAS can then look for a
   response and use this information to determine if the server is
   active or unresponsive.

   As seen above with Access-Request, the server may then conclude that
   a real user has logged onto a NAS, and perform local-site actions
   that are undesirable for a simple status query.

   Another consideration is that some attributes are mandatory to
   include in an Accounting-Request.  This requirement forces the
   administrator to query an accounting server with fake values for
   those attributes in a test packet.  These fake values increase the
   work required to perform a simple query, and they may pollute the
   server's accounting database with incorrect data.

<span class="h4"><h4><a class="selflink" name="section-2.2.1" href="#section-2.2.1">2.2.1</a>.  Recommendation against Accounting-Request</h4></span>

   For the reasons outlined above, NAS implementors SHOULD NOT generate
   Accounting-Request packets solely to see if a server is alive.
   Similarly, site administrators SHOULD NOT configure accounting
   policies whose sole reason for existence is to enable such queries
   via Accounting-Request packets.

   Note that it still may be useful to configure test users for the
   purpose of performing end-to-end or in-depth testing of a server's
   policy.  While this practice is widespread, we caution administrators
   to use it with care.







<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 7]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-8" id="page-8" href="#page-8" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Packet Format</h2></span>

   Status-Server packets reuse the RADIUS packet format, with the fields
   and values for those fields as defined in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865#section-3">[RFC2865], Section&nbsp;3</a>.  We
   do not include all of the text or diagrams of that section here, but
   instead explain the differences required to implement Status-Server.

   The Authenticator field of Status-Server packets MUST be generated
   using the same method as that used for the Request Authenticator
   field of Access-Request packets, as given below.

   The role of the Identifier field is the same for Status-Server as for
   other packets.  However, as Status-Server is taking the role of
   Access-Request or Accounting-Request packets, there is the potential
   for Status-Server requests to be in conflict with Access-Request or
   Accounting-Request packets with the same Identifier.  In <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>
   below, we describe a method for avoiding these problems.  This method
   MUST be used to avoid conflicts between Status-Server and other
   packet types.

      Request Authenticator

         In Status-Server packets, the Authenticator value is a 16-octet
         random number called the Request Authenticator.  The value
         SHOULD be unpredictable and unique over the lifetime of a
         secret (the password shared between the client and the RADIUS
         server), since repetition of a request value in conjunction
         with the same secret would permit an attacker to reply with a
         previously intercepted response.  Since it is expected that the
         same secret MAY be used to authenticate with servers in
         disparate geographic regions, the Request Authenticator field
         SHOULD exhibit global and temporal uniqueness.  See [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4086" title="&quot;Randomness Requirements for Security&quot;">RFC4086</a>]
         for suggestions as to how random numbers may be generated.

         The Request Authenticator value in a Status-Server packet
         SHOULD also be unpredictable, lest an attacker trick a server
         into responding to a predicted future request, and then use the
         response to masquerade as that server to a future Status-Server
         request from a client.

   Similarly, the Response Authenticator field of an Access-Accept
   packet sent in response to Status-Server queries MUST be generated
   using the same method as used for calculating the Response
   Authenticator of the Access-Accept sent in response to an Access-
   Request, with the Status-Server Request Authenticator taking the
   place of the Access-Request Request Authenticator.





<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 8]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-9" id="page-9" href="#page-9" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   The Response Authenticator field of an Accounting-Response packet
   sent in response to Status-Server queries MUST be generated using the
   same method as used for calculating the Response Authenticator of the
   Accounting-Response sent in response to an Accounting-Request, with
   the Status-Server Request Authenticator taking the place of the
   Accounting-Request Request Authenticator.

   Note that when a server responds to a Status-Server request, it MUST
   NOT send more than one Response packet.

      Response Authenticator

         The value of the Authenticator field in Access-Accept or
         Accounting-Response packets is called the Response
         Authenticator, and contains a one-way MD5 hash calculated over
         a stream of octets consisting of: the RADIUS packet, beginning
         with the Code field, including the Identifier, the Length, the
         Request Authenticator field from the Status-Server packet, and
         the response Attributes (if any), followed by the shared
         secret.  That is,

         ResponseAuth =
            MD5(Code+ID+Length+RequestAuth+Attributes+Secret)

         where + denotes concatenation.

   In addition to the above requirements, all Status-Server packets MUST
   include a Message-Authenticator attribute.  Failure to do so would
   mean that the packets could be trivially spoofed.

   Status-Server packets MAY include NAS-Identifier, and one of
   NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address.  These attributes are not
   necessary for the operation of Status-Server, but may be useful
   information to a server that receives those packets.

   Other attributes SHOULD NOT be included in a Status-Server packet,
   and MUST be ignored if they are included.  User authentication
   credentials such as User-Name, User-Password, CHAP-Password,
   EAP-Message MUST NOT appear in a Status-Server packet sent to a
   RADIUS authentication port.  User or NAS accounting attributes such
   as Acct-Session-Id, Acct-Status-Type, Acct-Input-Octets MUST NOT
   appear in a Status-Server packet sent to a RADIUS accounting port.

   The Access-Accept MAY contain a Reply-Message or Message-
   Authenticator attribute.  It SHOULD NOT contain other attributes.
   The Accounting-Response packets sent in response to a Status-Server
   query SHOULD NOT contain any attributes.  As the intent is to




<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                     [Page 9]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-10" id="page-10" href="#page-10" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   implement a simple query instead of user authentication or
   accounting, there is little reason to include other attributes in
   either the query or the corresponding response.

   Examples of Status-Server packet flows are given below in <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a>.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Single Definition for Status-Server</h3></span>

   When sent to a RADIUS accounting port, the contents of the Status-
   Server packets are calculated as described above.  That is, even
   though the packets are being sent to an accounting port, they are not
   created using the same method as is used for Accounting-Requests.
   This difference has a number of benefits.

   Having a single definition for Status-Server packets is simpler than
   having different definitions for different destination ports.  In
   addition, if we were to define Status-Server as being similar to
   Accounting-Request but containing no attributes, then those packets
   could be trivially forged.

   We therefore define Status-Server consistently, and vary the response
   packets depending on the port to which the request is sent.  When
   sent to an authentication port, the response to a Status-Server query
   is an Access-Accept packet.  When sent to an accounting port, the
   response to a Status-Server query is an Accounting-Response packet.

<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  Implementation Notes</h2></span>

   There are a number of considerations to take into account when
   implementing support for Status-Server.  This section describes
   implementation details and requirements for RADIUS clients and
   servers that support Status-Server.

   The following text applies to the authentication and accounting
   ports.  We use the generic terms below to simplify the discussion:

      *  Request packet

         An Access-Request packet sent to an authentication port or an
         Accounting-Request packet sent to an accounting port.

      *  Response packet

         An Access-Accept, Access-Challenge, or Access-Reject packet
         sent from an authentication port or an Accounting-Response
         packet sent from an accounting port.





<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 10]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-11" id="page-11" href="#page-11" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   We also refer to "client" as the originator of the Status-Server
   packet, and "server" as the receiver of that packet and the
   originator of the Response packet.

   Using generic terms to describe the Status-Server conversations is
   simpler than duplicating the text for authentication and accounting
   packets.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>.  Client Requirements</h3></span>

   Clients SHOULD permit administrators to globally enable or disable
   the generation of Status-Server packets.  The default SHOULD be that
   it is disabled.  As it is undesirable to send queries to servers that
   do not support Status-Server, clients SHOULD also have a per-server
   configuration indicating whether or not to enable Status-Server for a
   particular destination.  The default SHOULD be that it is disabled.

   The client SHOULD use a watchdog timer, such as is defined in <a href="#section-2.2.1">Section</a>
   <a href="#section-2.2.1">2.2.1</a> of [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5080" title="&quot;Common Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes&quot;">RFC5080</a>], to determine when to send Status-Server packets.

   When Status-Server packets are sent from a client, they MUST NOT be
   retransmitted.  Instead, the Identity field MUST be changed every
   time a packet is transmitted.  The old packet should be discarded,
   and a new Status-Server packet should be generated and sent, with new
   Identity and Authenticator fields.

   Clients MUST include the Message-Authenticator attribute in all
   Status-Server packets.  Failure to do so would mean that the packets
   could be trivially spoofed, leading to potential denial-of-service
   (DoS) attacks.  Other attributes SHOULD NOT appear in a Status-Server
   packet, except as outlined below in <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a>.  As the intent of the
   packet is a simple status query, there is little reason for any
   additional attributes to appear in Status-Server packets.

   The client MAY increment packet counters as a result of sending a
   Status-Server request or of receiving a Response packet.  The client
   MUST NOT perform any other action that is normally performed when it
   receives a Response packet, such as permitting a user to have login
   access to a port.

   Clients MAY send Status-Server requests to the RADIUS destination
   ports from the same source port used to send normal Request packets.
   Other clients MAY choose to send Status-Server requests from a unique
   source port that is not used to send Request packets.

   The above suggestion for a unique source port for Status-Server
   packets aids in matching responses to requests.  Since the response
   to a Status-Server packet is an Access-Accept or Accounting-Response



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 11]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-12" id="page-12" href="#page-12" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   packet, those responses are indistinguishable from other packets sent
   in response to a Request packet.  Therefore, the best way to
   distinguish them from other traffic is to have a unique port.

   A client MAY send a Status-Server packet from a source port also used
   to send Request packets.  In that case, the Identifier field MUST be
   unique across all outstanding Request packets for that source port,
   independent of the value of the RADIUS Code field for those
   outstanding requests.  Once the client has either received a response
   to the Status-Server packet or determined that the Status-Server
   packet has timed out, it may reuse that Identifier in another packet.

   Robust implementations SHOULD accept any Response packet as a valid
   response to a Status-Server packet, subject to the validation
   requirements defined above for the Response Authenticator.  The Code
   field of the packet matters less than the fact that a valid, signed
   response has been received.

   That is, prior to accepting the response as valid, the client should
   check that the Response packet Code field is either Access-Accept (2)
   or Accounting-Response (5).  If the Code does not match any of these
   values, the packet MUST be silently discarded.  The client MUST then
   validate the Response Authenticator via the algorithm given above in
   <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.  If the Response Authenticator is not valid, the packet
   MUST be silently discarded.  If the Response Authenticator is valid,
   then the packet MUST be deemed to be a valid response from the
   server.

   If the client instead discarded the response because the packet Code
   did not match what it expected, then it could erroneously discard
   valid responses from a server, and mark that server as unresponsive.
   This behavior would affect the stability of a RADIUS network, as
   responsive servers would erroneously be marked as unresponsive.  We
   therefore recommend that clients should be liberal in what they
   accept as responses to Status-Server queries.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>.  Server Requirements</h3></span>

   Servers SHOULD permit administrators to globally enable or disable
   the acceptance of Status-Server packets.  The default SHOULD be that
   acceptance is enabled.  Servers SHOULD also permit administrators to
   enable or disable acceptance of Status-Server packets on a per-client
   basis.  The default SHOULD be that acceptance is enabled.

   Status-Server packets originating from clients that are not permitted
   to send the server Request packets MUST be silently discarded.  If a
   server does not support Status-Server packets, or is configured not
   to respond to them, then it MUST silently discard the packet.



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 12]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-13" id="page-13" href="#page-13" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   We note that <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865#section-3">[RFC2865], Section&nbsp;3</a>, defines a number of RADIUS Codes,
   but does not make statements about which Codes are valid for
   port 1812.  In contrast, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2866#section-3">[RFC2866], Section&nbsp;3</a>, specifies that only
   RADIUS Accounting packets are to be sent to port 1813.  This
   specification is compatible with [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865" title="&quot;Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)&quot;">RFC2865</a>], as it uses a known Code
   for packets to port 1812.  This specification is not compatible with
   [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2866" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting&quot;">RFC2866</a>], as it adds a new Code (Status-Server) that is valid for
   port 1812.  However, as the category of [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2866" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting&quot;">RFC2866</a>] is Informational,
   this conflict is acceptable.

   Servers SHOULD silently discard Status-Server packets if they
   determine that a client is sending too many Status-Server requests in
   a particular time period.  The method used by a server to make this
   determination is implementation specific and out of scope for this
   specification.

   If a server supports Status-Server packets, and is configured to
   respond to them, and receives a packet from a known client, it MUST
   validate the Message-Authenticator attribute as defined in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3579#section-3.2">[RFC3579],
   Section&nbsp;3.2</a>.  Packets failing that validation MUST be silently
   discarded.

   Servers SHOULD NOT otherwise discard Status-Server packets if they
   have recently sent the client a Response packet.  The query may have
   originated from an administrator who does not have access to the
   Response packet stream or one who is interested in obtaining
   additional information about the server.

   The server MAY prioritize the handling of Status-Server packets over
   the handling of other requests, subject to the rate limiting
   described above.

   The server MAY decide not to respond to a Status-Server, depending on
   local-site policy.  For example, a server that is running but is
   unable to perform its normal activities MAY silently discard Status-
   Server packets.  This situation can happen, for example, when a
   server requires access to a database for normal operation, but the
   connection to that database is down.  Or, it may happen when the
   accepted load on the server is lower than the offered load.

   Some server implementations require that Access-Request packets be
   accepted only on "authentication" ports (e.g., 1812/udp), and that
   Accounting-Request packets be accepted only on "accounting" ports
   (e.g., 1813/udp).  Those implementations SHOULD reply to Status-
   Server packets sent to an "authentication" port with an Access-Accept
   packet and SHOULD reply to Status-Server packets sent to an
   "accounting" port with an Accounting-Response packet.




<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 13]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-14" id="page-14" href="#page-14" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   Some server implementations accept both Access-Request and
   Accounting-Request packets on the same port, and they do not
   distinguish between "authentication only" ports and "accounting only"
   ports.  Those implementations SHOULD reply to Status-Server packets
   with an Access-Accept packet.

   The server MAY increment packet counters as a result of receiving a
   Status-Server packet or sending a Response packet.  The server SHOULD
   NOT perform any other action that is normally performed when it
   receives a Request packet, other than sending a Response packet.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>.  Failover with Status-Server</h3></span>

   A client may wish to "failover" from one proxy to another in the
   event that it does not receive a response to an Access-Request or
   Accounting-Request.  In order to determine whether the lack of
   response is due to a problem with the proxy or a downstream server,
   the client can send periodic Status-Server packets to a proxy after
   the lack of a response.

   These packets will help the client determine if the failure was due
   to an issue on the path between the client and proxy or the proxy
   itself, or whether the issue is occurring downstream.

   If no response is received to Status-Server packets, the RADIUS
   client can initiate failover to another proxy.  By continuing to send
   Status-Server packets to the original proxy, the RADIUS client can
   determine when it becomes responsive again.

   Once the server has been deemed responsive, normal RADIUS requests
   may be sent to it again.  This determination should be made
   separately for each server with which the client has a relationship.
   The same algorithm SHOULD be used for both authentication and
   accounting ports.  The client MUST treat each destination (IP, port)
   combination as a unique server for the purposes of this
   determination.

   Clients SHOULD use a retransmission mechanism similar to that given
   in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5080#section-2.2.1">Section&nbsp;2.2.1 of [RFC5080]</a>.  If a reliable transport is used for
   RADIUS, then the watchdog timer algorithm specified in [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3539" title="&quot;Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile&quot;">RFC3539</a>] MUST
   be used.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>.  Proxy Server Handling of Status-Server</h3></span>

   Many RADIUS servers can act as proxy servers, and can forward
   requests to another RADIUS server.  Such servers MUST NOT proxy
   Status-Server packets.  The purpose of Status-Server as specified
   here is to permit the client to query the responsiveness of a server



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 14]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-15" id="page-15" href="#page-15" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   with which it has a direct relationship.  Proxying Status-Server
   queries would negate any usefulness that may be gained by
   implementing support for them.

   Proxy servers MAY be configured to respond to Status-Server queries
   from clients, and they MAY act as clients sending Status-Server
   queries to other servers.  However, those activities MUST be
   independent of one another.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>.  Limitations of Status-Server</h3></span>

   RADIUS servers are commonly used in an environment where Network
   Access Identifiers (NAIs) are used as routing identifiers [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282" title="&quot;The Network Access Identifier&quot;">RFC4282</a>].
   In this practice, the User-Name attribute is decorated with realm-
   routing information, commonly in the format of "user@realm".  Since a
   particular RADIUS server may act as a proxy for more than one realm,
   we need to explain how the behavior defined above in <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>
   affects realm routing.

   The schematic below demonstrates this scenario.

              /-&gt; RADIUS Proxy P -----&gt; RADIUS Server for Realm A
             /                    \ /
          NAS                      X
             \                    / \
              \-&gt; RADIUS Proxy S -----&gt; RADIUS Server for Realm B

   That is, the NAS has relationships with two RADIUS Proxies, P and S.
   Each RADIUS proxy has relationships with RADIUS servers for both
   Realm A and Realm B.

   In this scenario, the RADIUS proxies can determine if one or both of
   the RADIUS servers are dead or unreachable.  The NAS can determine if
   one or both of the RADIUS proxies are dead or unreachable.  There is
   an additional case to consider, however.

   If RADIUS Proxy P cannot reach the RADIUS server for Realm A, but
   RADIUS Proxy S can reach that RADIUS server, then the NAS cannot
   discover this information using the Status-Server queries as outlined
   above.  It would therefore be useful for the NAS to know that Realm A
   is reachable from RADIUS Proxy S, as it can then route all requests
   for Realm A to that RADIUS proxy.  Without this knowledge, the client
   may route requests to RADIUS Proxy P, where they may be discarded or
   rejected.

   To complicate matters, the behavior of RADIUS Proxies P and S in this
   situation is not well defined.  Some implementations simply fail to
   respond to the request, and other implementations respond with an



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 15]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-16" id="page-16" href="#page-16" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   Access-Reject.  If the implementation fails to respond, then the NAS
   cannot distinguish between the RADIUS proxy being down and the next
   server along the proxy chain being unreachable.

   In the worst case, failures in routing for Realm A may affect users
   of Realm B.  For example, if RADIUS Proxy P can reach Realm B but not
   Realm A, and RADIUS Proxy S can reach Realm A but not Realm B, then
   active paths exist to handle all RADIUS requests.  However, depending
   on the NAS and RADIUS proxy implementation choices, the NAS may not
   be able to determine to which server requests may be sent in order to
   maintain network stability.

   Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved by using Status-Server
   requests.  A robust solution would involve either a RADIUS routing
   table for the NAI realms or a RADIUS "destination unreachable"
   response to authentication requests.  Either solution would not fit
   into the traditional RADIUS model, and both are therefore outside of
   the scope of this specification.

   The problem is discussed here in order to define how best to use
   Status-Server in this situation, rather than to define a new
   solution.

   When a server has responded recently to a request from a client, that
   client MUST mark the server as "responsive".  In the above case, a
   RADIUS proxy may be responding to requests destined for Realm A, but
   not responding to requests destined for Realm B.  The client
   therefore considers the server to be responsive, as it is receiving
   responses from the server.

   The client will then continue to send requests to the RADIUS proxy
   for destination Realm B, even though the RADIUS proxy cannot route
   the requests to that destination.  This failure is a known limitation
   of RADIUS, and can be partially addressed through the use of failover
   in the RADIUS proxies.

   A more realistic situation than the one outlined above is one in
   which each RADIUS proxy also has multiple choices of RADIUS servers
   for a realm, as outlined below.

                /-&gt; RADIUS Proxy P -----&gt; RADIUS Server P
               /                    \ /
            NAS                      X
               \                    / \
                \-&gt; RADIUS Proxy S -----&gt; RADIUS Server S






<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 16]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-17" id="page-17" href="#page-17" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   In this situation, if all participants implement Status-Server as
   defined herein, any one link may be broken, and all requests from the
   NAS will still reach a RADIUS server.  If two links are broken at
   different places (i.e., not both links from the NAS), then all
   requests from the NAS will still reach a RADIUS server.  In many
   situations where three or more links are broken, requests from the
   NAS may still reach a RADIUS server.

   It is RECOMMENDED, therefore, that implementations desiring the most
   benefit from Status-Server also implement server failover.  The
   combination of these two practices will maximize network reliability
   and stability.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-4.6" href="#section-4.6">4.6</a>.  Management Information Base (MIB) Considerations</h3></span>

<span class="h4"><h4><a class="selflink" name="section-4.6.1" href="#section-4.6.1">4.6.1</a>.  Interaction with RADIUS Server MIB Modules</h4></span>

   Since Status-Server packets are sent to the defined RADIUS ports,
   they can affect the [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4669" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4669</a>] and [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4671" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4671</a>] RADIUS server MIB
   modules.  [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4669" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4669</a>] defines a counter named
   radiusAuthServTotalUnknownTypes that counts "The number of RADIUS
   packets of unknown type that were received".  [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4671" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4671</a>] defines a
   similar counter named radiusAccServTotalUnknownTypes.
   Implementations not supporting Status-Server or implementations that
   are configured not to respond to Status-Server packets MUST use these
   counters to track received Status-Server packets.

   If, however, Status-Server is supported and the server is configured
   to respond as described above, then the counters defined in [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4669" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4669</a>]
   and [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4671" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4671</a>] MUST NOT be used to track Status-Server requests or
   responses to those requests.  That is, when a server fully implements
   Status-Server, the counters defined in [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4669" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4669</a>] and [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4671" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4671</a>] MUST
   be unaffected by the transmission or reception of packets relating to
   Status-Server.

   If a server supports Status-Server and the [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4669" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4669</a>] or [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4671" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4671</a>] MIB
   modules, then it SHOULD also support vendor-specific MIB extensions
   dedicated solely to tracking Status-Server requests and responses.
   Any definition of the server MIB modules for Status-Server is outside
   of the scope of this document.

<span class="h4"><h4><a class="selflink" name="section-4.6.2" href="#section-4.6.2">4.6.2</a>.  Interaction with RADIUS Client MIB Modules</h4></span>

   Clients implementing Status-Server MUST NOT increment [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4668" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4668</a>] or
   [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4670" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4670</a>] counters upon reception of Response packets to Status-
   Server queries.  That is, when a server fully implements Status-





<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 17]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-18" id="page-18" href="#page-18" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   Server, the counters defined in [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4668" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4668</a>] and [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4670" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4670</a>] MUST be
   unaffected by the transmission or reception of packets relating to
   Status-Server.

   If an implementation supports Status-Server and the [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4668" title="&quot;RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4668</a>] or
   [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4670" title="&quot;RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6&quot;">RFC4670</a>] MIB modules, then it SHOULD also support vendor-specific
   MIB extensions dedicated solely to tracking Status-Server requests
   and responses.  Any definition of the client MIB modules for Status-
   Server is outside of the scope of this document.

<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Table of Attributes</h2></span>

   The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found
   in Status-Server packets, and in what quantity.  Attributes other
   than the ones listed below SHOULD NOT be found in a Status-Server
   packet.

      Status-  Access-  Accounting-
      Server   Accept   Response      #      Attribute

      0        0        0             1      User-Name
      0        0        0             2      User-Password
      0        0        0             3      CHAP-Password
      0-1      0        0             4      NAS-IP-Address (Note 1)
      0        0+       0            18      Reply-Message
      0+       0+       0+           26      Vendor-Specific
      0-1      0        0            32      NAS-Identifier (Note 1)
      0        0        0            79      EAP-Message
      1        0-1      0-1          80      Message-Authenticator
      0-1      0        0            95      NAS-IPv6-Address (Note 1)
      0        0        0            103-121 Digest-*

      Note 1: A Status-Server packet SHOULD contain one of
      (NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address), or NAS-Identifier, or both
      NAS-Identifier and one of (NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address).

   The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries.

   0     This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet.
   0+    Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in
         packet.
   0-1   Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in
         packet.
   1     Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present in
         packet.






<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 18]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-19" id="page-19" href="#page-19" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  Examples</h2></span>

   A few examples are presented to illustrate the flow of packets to
   both the authentication and accounting ports.  These examples are not
   intended to be exhaustive; many others are possible.  Hexadecimal
   dumps of the example packets are given in network byte order, using
   the shared secret "xyzzy5461".

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Minimal Query to Authentication Port</h3></span>

   The NAS sends a Status-Server UDP packet with minimal content to a
   RADIUS server on port 1812.

   The Request Authenticator is a 16-octet random number generated by
   the NAS.  Message-Authenticator is included in order to authenticate
   that the request came from a known client.

      0c da 00 26 8a 54 f4 68 6f b3 94 c5 28 66 e3 02
      18 5d 06 23 50 12 5a 66 5e 2e 1e 84 11 f3 e2 43
      82 20 97 c8 4f a3

       1 Code = Status-Server (12)
       1 ID = 218
       2 Length = 38
      16 Request Authenticator

      Attributes:
      18 Message-Authenticator (80) = 5a665e2e1e8411f3e243822097c84fa3

   The Response Authenticator is a 16-octet MD5 checksum of the Code
   (2), ID (218), Length (20), the Request Authenticator from above, and
   the shared secret.

      02 da 00 14 ef 0d 55 2a 4b f2 d6 93 ec 2b 6f e8
      b5 41 1d 66

      1 Code = Access-Accept (2)
      1 ID = 218
      2 Length = 20
     16 Request Authenticator

     Attributes:
        None.








<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 19]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-20" id="page-20" href="#page-20" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Minimal Query to Accounting Port</h3></span>

   The NAS sends a Status-Server UDP packet with minimal content to a
   RADIUS server on port 1813.

   The Request Authenticator is a 16-octet random number generated by
   the NAS.  Message-Authenticator is included in order to authenticate
   that the request came from a known client.

      0c b3 00 26 92 5f 6b 66 dd 5f ed 57 1f cb 1d b7
      ad 38 82 60 50 12 e8 d6 ea bd a9 10 87 5c d9 1f
      da de 26 36 78 58

       1 Code = Status-Server (12)
       1 ID = 179
       2 Length = 38
      16 Request Authenticator

      Attributes:
      18 Message-Authenticator (80) = e8d6eabda910875cd91fdade26367858

   The Response Authenticator is a 16-octet MD5 checksum of the Code
   (5), ID (179), Length (20), the Request Authenticator from above, and
   the shared secret.

      02 b3 00 14 0f 6f 92 14 5f 10 7e 2f 50 4e 86 0a
      48 60 66 9c

       1 Code = Accounting-Response (5)
       1 ID = 179
       2 Length = 20
      16 Request Authenticator

      Attributes:
         None.
















<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 20]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-21" id="page-21" href="#page-21" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Verbose Query and Response</h3></span>

   The NAS at 192.0.2.16 sends a Status-Server UDP packet to the RADIUS
   server on port 1812.

   The Request Authenticator is a 16-octet random number generated by
   the NAS.

      0c 47 00 2c bf 58 de 56 ae 40 8a d3 b7 0c 85 13
      f9 b0 3f be 04 06 c0 00 02 10 50 12 85 2d 6f ec
      61 e7 ed 74 b8 e3 2d ac 2f 2a 5f b2

       1 Code = Status-Server (12)
       1 ID = 71
       2 Length = 44
      16 Request Authenticator

      Attributes:
       6  NAS-IP-Address (4) = 192.0.2.16
      18 Message-Authenticator (80) = 852d6fec61e7ed74b8e32dac2f2a5fb2

   The Response Authenticator is a 16-octet MD5 checksum of the Code
   (2), ID (71), Length (52), the Request Authenticator from above, the
   attributes in this reply, and the shared secret.

   The Reply-Message is "RADIUS Server up 2 days, 18:40"

      02 47 00 34 46 f4 3e 62 fd 03 54 42 4c bb eb fd
      6d 21 4e 06 12 20 52 41 44 49 55 53 20 53 65 72
      76 65 72 20 75 70 20 32 20 64 61 79 73 2c 20 31
      38 3a 34 30

       1 Code = Access-Accept (2)
       1 ID = 71
       2 Length = 52
      16 Request Authenticator

      Attributes:
      32 Reply-Message (18)

<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  Security Considerations</h2></span>

   This document defines the Status-Server packet as being similar in
   treatment to the Access-Request packet, and is therefore subject to
   the same security considerations as described in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865#section-8">[RFC2865],
   Section&nbsp;8</a>.  Status-Server packets also use the Message-Authenticator
   attribute, and are therefore subject to the same security
   considerations as <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3579#section-4">[RFC3579], Section&nbsp;4</a>.



<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 21]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-22" id="page-22" href="#page-22" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   We reiterate that Status-Server packets MUST contain a Message-
   Authenticator attribute.  Early implementations supporting Status-
   Server did not enforce this requirement, and were vulnerable to the
   following attacks:

      *  Servers not checking the Message-Authenticator attribute could
         respond to Status-Server packets from an attacker, potentially
         enabling a reflected DoS attack onto a real client.

      *  Servers not checking the Message-Authenticator attribute could
         be subject to a race condition, where an attacker could see an
         Access-Request packet from a valid client and synthesize a
         Status-Server packet containing the same Request Authenticator.
         If the attacker won the race against the valid client, the
         server could respond with an Access-Accept and potentially
         authorize unwanted service.

   The last attack is similar to a related attack when Access-Request
   packets contain a CHAP-Password but no Message-Authenticator.  We
   re-iterate the suggestion of <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5080#section-2.2.2">[RFC5080], Section&nbsp;2.2.2</a>, which proposes
   that all clients send a Message-Authenticator in every Access-Request
   packet, and that all servers have a configuration setting to require
   (or not) that a Message-Authenticator attribute be used in every
   Access-Request packet.

   Failure to include a Message-Authenticator attribute in a Status-
   Server packet means that any RADIUS client or server may be
   vulnerable to the attacks outlined above.  For this reason,
   implementations of this specification that fail to require use of the
   Message-Authenticator attribute are NOT RECOMMENDED.

   Where this document differs from [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865" title="&quot;Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)&quot;">RFC2865</a>] is that it defines a new
   request/response method in RADIUS: the Status-Server request.  As
   this use is based on previously described and implemented standards,
   we know of no additional security considerations that arise from the
   use of Status-Server as defined herein.

   Attacks on cryptographic hashes are well known [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4270" title="&quot;Attacks on Cryptographic Hashes in Internet Protocols&quot;">RFC4270</a>] and getting
   better with time.  RADIUS uses the MD5 hash [<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1321" title="&quot;The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm&quot;">RFC1321</a>] for packet
   authentication and attribute obfuscation.  There are ongoing efforts
   in the IETF to analyze and address these issues for the RADIUS
   protocol.









<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 22]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-23" id="page-23" href="#page-23" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


<span class="h2"><h2><a class="selflink" name="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  References</h2></span>

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>.  Normative References</h3></span>

   [<a name="ref-RFC1321" id="ref-RFC1321">RFC1321</a>]   Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1321">RFC 1321</a>,
               April 1992.

   [<a name="ref-RFC2119" id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.

   [<a name="ref-RFC2865" id="ref-RFC2865">RFC2865</a>]   Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
               "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865">RFC 2865</a>, June 2000.

   [<a name="ref-RFC3539" id="ref-RFC3539">RFC3539</a>]   Aboba, B. and J. Wood, "Authentication, Authorization and
               Accounting (AAA) Transport Profile", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3539">RFC 3539</a>, June 2003.

   [<a name="ref-RFC4086" id="ref-RFC4086">RFC4086</a>]   Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
               "Randomness Requirements for Security", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp106">BCP 106</a>,
               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4086">RFC 4086</a>, June 2005.

   [<a name="ref-RFC4282" id="ref-RFC4282">RFC4282</a>]   Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
               Network Access Identifier", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4282">RFC 4282</a>, December 2005.

   [<a name="ref-RFC5080" id="ref-RFC5080">RFC5080</a>]   Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication
               Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and
               Suggested Fixes", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5080">RFC 5080</a>, December 2007.

<span class="h3"><h3><a class="selflink" name="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>.  Informative References</h3></span>

   [<a name="ref-RFC2866" id="ref-RFC2866">RFC2866</a>]   Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2866">RFC 2866</a>, June 2000.

   [<a name="ref-RFC3579" id="ref-RFC3579">RFC3579</a>]   Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
               Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
               Authentication Protocol (EAP)", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3579">RFC 3579</a>, September 2003.

   [<a name="ref-RFC4270" id="ref-RFC4270">RFC4270</a>]   Hoffman, P. and B. Schneier, "Attacks on Cryptographic
               Hashes in Internet Protocols", <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4270">RFC 4270</a>, November 2005.

   [<a name="ref-RFC4668" id="ref-RFC4668">RFC4668</a>]   Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6",
               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4668">RFC 4668</a>, August 2006.

   [<a name="ref-RFC4669" id="ref-RFC4669">RFC4669</a>]   Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6",
               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4669">RFC 4669</a>, August 2006.

   [<a name="ref-RFC4670" id="ref-RFC4670">RFC4670</a>]   Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6",
               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4670">RFC 4670</a>, August 2006.




<span class="grey">DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 23]</span>
</pre><!--NewPage--><pre class="newpage"><a name="page-24" id="page-24" href="#page-24" class="invisible"> </a>
<span class="grey"><a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5997">RFC 5997</a>                 Status-Server Practices             August 2010</span>


   [<a name="ref-RFC4671" id="ref-RFC4671">RFC4671</a>]   Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6",
               <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4671">RFC 4671</a>, August 2006.

Acknowledgments

   Parts of the text in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a> defining the Request and Response
   Authenticators were taken, with minor edits, from <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2865#section-3">[RFC2865],
   Section&nbsp;3</a>.

   The author would like to thank Mike McCauley of Open Systems
   Consultants for making a Radiator server available for
   interoperability testing.

   Ignacio Goyret provided valuable feedback on the history and security
   of the Status-Server packet.

Author's Address

   Alan DeKok
   The FreeRADIUS Server Project
   <a href="http://freeradius.org">http://freeradius.org</a>

   EMail: aland@freeradius.org




























DeKok                         Informational                    [Page 24]

</pre><br>
<span class="noprint"><small><small>Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from
<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/">https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/</a>
</small></small></span>

</body></html>